Abbey-Roads2

Sr. Mary Daniel King OP - it’s her birthday today.  She has been dead for a number of years now, but we knew each other well.  She was a Hawthorne Dominican, and for many years the Administrator of the St. Paul Cancer Home, Our Lady of Good Counsel.  She was special indeed - sort of a fire cracker.

She always wanted to leave and be either a hermit or - no, she would never make it in an enclosed order - so a hermit would have been best.  A move many of her sisters - at one time or another - may have preferred as well.  (Community life isn’t easy.)

Shoot from the hip nun that she was, she had a heart of gold.  Oh!  How she loved the poor.  (Actually all Hawthorne Dominicans love the poor.)  She was an excellent nun - crazy - but excellent.

I remember asking her once what she thought was wrong with her - “Were your parents alcoholic?  Were you abused?”  Which only got her more angry.

Then one day I asked, “Sr. Daniel, what is your heritage?”

“I’m German-Irish!” was her proud retort.

“That’s it!”  I said triumphantly.

“What’s it?”  She answered cautiously.

“That is your problem!”  Delighted, as I figured out what was wrong with her.

“You are a beast!”  She declared as she stormed out of the room.  (Note:  She was laughing at what I said.)

Yet she loved me, and I loved her.  We knew each other’s foibles and how to push each other’s buttons.  She was eccentric, and so was I.  Yet she was rather holy - I was just there to test her holiness before she died.

Sister developed Alzheimer’s, and eventually died a beautiful death.  She was born on this date when it fell on Good Friday in a year I can’t remember.

I miss her, and remember her fondly, and I know she prays for me who caused her such suffering at the end of her life.  Those Hawthorne Dominicans are tough ladies!   If you’re a tough lady, investigate their life - they take late vocations.  (You have to be generous though - it is a hard life.  Adoro…Cathy…are you reading this?)

Happy birthday Sister Daniel!

Share This

The Couric interview on 60 Minutes.

Were they hard hitting questions?  Kinda, sorta.  If they were indeed that, I think Katie was asking the questions Hilary would have wanted her to ask.  There is a feminist agenda you know.

Aside from that, I really like the couple.  I just wish they were pro-life.

Her cancer - now terminal - may get him many votes, if not the election.  I totally understand Mrs. Edwards insistence that John continue his campaign.  One of the hallmarks of people who suffer with cancer is that life must go on.  They are interesting folk, hanging in the abyss, as it were, between life and death.  It is an unique perspective healthy people cannot conceive of.

A person affected by cancer can throw it all away, or embrace life in its fullest dimension - in other words, they can battle it.  Elizabeth believes her husband would make a good president, and doesn’t care if she is there to see it.  I admire that spunk.

A friend I once worked closely with is a cancer survivor - she wants to live - and she does.  She would do the same thing Elizabeth Edwards is doing - because she lives for others.  Both of these women are great ladies - politics aside - and sadly, the life issue has been considered politics.  So, as much as I like her, I can’t condone her “politics”.

Maybe the life issue with John Edwards son’s untimely death, and now his wife’s death sentence, will have an effect upon how he views abortion.  That would be so great.  (If only they could make the connection.)

On the other hand, I choose to die - I’m tired of battles - it’s a legitimate choice.

Share This

First, let me say that I believe Jesus came to suffer and die for our sake so that we might have eternal life.  By His cross and resurrection he has set us free from our sins, he atoned for our sins, made satisfaction for our sins.  Having said that, many people wonder why pain and suffering continues to afflict humanity, and they desperately attempt to understand its meaning and purpose, or to avoid it at all cost.  Jean Vanier has a beautiful reflection on the subject in his book, “Befriending the Stranger”: 

“Our spontaneous reaction to suffering is repulsion.  We are frightened of pain: the most common response to the existence of pain is to be scandalized by it and to seek to eliminate it…but Jesus brings a whole new meaning to pain.

Jesus did not die serenely but in agony…

Jesus did not come into this world to explain suffering nor to justify its existence.  He came to reveal that we can all alleviate pain through our competence and compassion.  He came to show us every pain, every hurt we experience can become an offering, and thus a source of life for others in and through Jesus’ offering of love to the Father.”  - Jean Vanier of l’Arche

I think the sufferings of Jesus also speak to the fact that suffering is inseparable from earthly existence - all creatures on the face of the earth suffer - we cannot avoid it.  Yet Jesus shows us how to suffer, and in our own pain, He helps us to compassionate others who are also in pain.  In suffering, we can either seek alleviation and consolation through selfishness, which leads to bitterness and anger, or we can be present to others, either spiritually or corporally, in order to alleviate their pain, or simply to console them in their pain.  Compassion means “to suffer with” - one is devoid of compassion when one seeks only oneself - which in the end is a very bitter medication to take.

Share This

Crucifix attributed to Michelangelo.

When Corrie and Betsy Ten Boom were hustled naked into the showers at the concentration camp Ravensbruck, Corrie told Betsy, “Jesus was naked too when they crucified Him.”  They were ashamed of their nakedness in front of the prison guards, and only then realized in a graphic manner that Jesus was also naked upon the cross.  As Dutch Protestants, they may not have been so aware of this fact since images such as crucifixes were not part of their devotional life.  In fact, focus upon the passion of Christ was less explicit in Protestant spirituality since emphasis was more often centered upon the Resurrection of Christ and His triumph.  (Not unlike the post-Vatican II Catholic Church has been.)

We don’t like to think of Jesus as naked, and many do not even like art depicting Jesus as a naked infant.  Because of our concupiscence, nakedness is shameful in irregular circumstances, that’s why we wear clothing.  For the Romans to strip Jesus naked was another means to further humiliate and shame him before Jew and Gentile alike.   It is believed someone gave a veil to cover the loins of Our Lord, perhaps it was the Magdalen, since we see her unveiled at the foot of the cross in art.  (Although such depictions were employed to remind and identify her as the woman who had anointed the feet of Jesus with her hair as well.)

Mystics have noted there were well over five thousand wounds and lacerations upon the body of Christ.  As Gibson’s “Passion of the Christ” demonstrates, his body appeared to be almost as raw meat, totally bloodied, nearly unrecognizable - and people would have turned away from the sight of Him.  I would think that even the most depraved and debauched individual would not be able to take sensual delight before such a brutalized and naked figure.

It seems to me the nakedness of the Cross condemns the vanity, immodesty and sensuality of our times.  

Share This